Due to their basic faith (Materialism) many scientists will ignore or misread information which clashes with their faith.

Reports from such people will mislead others who would otherwise take a more honest approach.

I saw an interesting example of this, recently. It was reported a few days ago that the 1908 Tunguska meteorite was really a comet:

www.physorg.com/news165077281.html

Michael Kelley, Distinguished Professor, evidently failed to explore the larger ramifications of this.

The Plasma people, who are far from Creationists, but regularly publish raw data & insightful exploration of it which completely undermines the Big Bang, would point out that our misunderstanding of some very basic cosmological facts (such as 99+% of everything being plasma) definitely leaves room for a recent beginning.

The fact that the Big Bang cannot possibly work is obscured by the first group (who reinterpret according to presumed belief), so the second group are then free to assume what they wish, based on this non-data.

www.thunderbolts.info/

Leon Brooks

What would we think of physicists or chemists who changed their theories in response to political pressure or the ignorant opinion of liberal elites? Would we pay them to design, say, a spaceship with their new theories?

The American Psychological Association, a semi-political organisation not known for pursuing scientific rigour consistently, eventually followed the above poor example of medical science prostituting itself. Within the last few days I have read the opinion of a psychologist who said he approved of this change but nevertheless urged his colleagues at the time to research the subject further to scientifically justify the change. Liberal ideology first, science later.

There was also an attempt to remove paedophilia from the official list of mental disorders. I don’t know the outcome of that yet. In particular I don’t know if the culprits were the usual suspects. Or was it the clique that wanted coffee addiction listed to flesh out the official nomenclature that undergirds the economic base of the psychiatric profession?

John Snowden

I actually think it is both. There are of course rogue scientists, dishonest scientists, and the like. Not all of them are obviously. But many people do see science as saviour. As part of the Enlightenment project, there really is a (misplaced) faith in science to come up with all the goods, to solve all our problems, and lead us into the Promised Land.

That is why of course, in part, Postmodernism has arisen as a protest movement against modernism and its emphasis on science and technology, progress and an overly optimistic view of life. While I have of course many problems with PoMo, it is right to question many of the core assumptions of modernism, including its tendency to turn science in scientism.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I am not sure if I really follow this article. If a house falls down do we blame the hammer? We must make a clear distinction between the science and the scientist. As an example, you refer to nuclear technology. One scientist will make devastating weapons form it yet another will make electricity. The science has not changed just the use of it has. To attack science per say makes no sense., the real culprit is the scientist and as we both know that area can be populated with quite odd people. Maybe a better heading might be Scientists as Saviors??
Ben Green

2. As to propaganda, yes, there is much that is nothing more than mendacious brainwashing, and not-so-subtle suggestion dropped at convenient intervals. Just look at the typical David Attenborough nature programme on TV! However, even here, from the evolutionist’s standpoint, it is not so much deliberate fraud as his whole-soul commitment to the evolutionary philosophical outlook, such that he sees everything from within that framework, just as a Christian sees everything from a Creation-Providence framework.

The global warming hype, by contrast, has so much to it that just is deliberate fraud, lies, propaganda, cover-up, and corruption at the highest level. The best comparison, in my view, is the thalidomide scandal of the early 1960s and the overtly fraudulent work of William McBride – for which he was later convicted. The trouble is, that, it is so much a part of the UN and its affiliated governments that we can be confident that no-one will ever be arraigned or convicted before a human court. We must leave it to the judgment of The Great Day (Jude 6).
Murray Adamthwaite

Ewan McDonald.

Yes, scientism is self-refuting. It cannot be scientifically verified. One simply cannot empirically demonstrate that all non-empirical truth claims cannot be known, or are meaningless. Indeed, science rests on non-empirical assumptions, including the reliability of sense perception, the uniformity of nature, and so on. These are philosophical assumptions upon which science is based

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch